Comments on: New genomes hint at evolution’s slimy past http://www.futurity.org/science-technology/new-genomes-hint-at-evolution%e2%80%99s-slimy-past/ Research news from leading universities Mon, 20 May 2013 03:31:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Roy Niles http://www.futurity.org/science-technology/new-genomes-hint-at-evolution%e2%80%99s-slimy-past/comment-page-1/#comment-558562 Roy Niles Sun, 20 Jan 2013 02:40:00 +0000 http://www.futurity.org/?p=246082#comment-558562 By the way Frank, you sly fellow, the Wikipedia article includes this notice: "This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article needs additional citations for verification. (May 2008) This article is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. (May 2008)" As to articles re adaptive mutation, look up the writings of James A Shapiro, and you''ll see that what you like call my theory was promoted years ago by him. http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/ Also here's a good review of the subject that pops right up on Google: EVOLVING RESPONSIVELY: ADAPTIVE MUTATION http://www.micab.umn.edu/courses/8002/Rosenberg.pdf Remember Frank when you said, "I am interested in the research showing that my understanding of epigenetics is flawed," Here's your chance to read some and prove that you weren't just using the usual deceptive commentary that your lot seems to thnik is a good debating ploy. By the way Frank, you sly fellow, the Wikipedia article includes this notice:
“This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article needs additional citations for verification. (May 2008)
This article is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. (May 2008)”
As to articles re adaptive mutation, look up the writings of James A Shapiro, and you”ll see that what you like call my theory was promoted years ago by him. http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/
Also here’s a good review of the subject that pops right up on Google: EVOLVING RESPONSIVELY: ADAPTIVE MUTATION
http://www.micab.umn.edu/courses/8002/Rosenberg.pdf
Remember Frank when you said, “I am interested in the research showing that my understanding of epigenetics is flawed,” Here’s your chance to read some and prove that you weren’t just using the usual deceptive commentary that your lot seems to thnik is a good debating ploy.

]]> By: Roy Niles http://www.futurity.org/science-technology/new-genomes-hint-at-evolution%e2%80%99s-slimy-past/comment-page-1/#comment-558502 Roy Niles Sun, 20 Jan 2013 01:58:20 +0000 http://www.futurity.org/?p=246082#comment-558502 So Frank, you look in Wikipedia to understand adaptive mutation? How logically skilled is that? And in your so-called understanding of your own analogy, your logic tells you that interaction does not involve reaction? All reactions in nature are governed by its intelligently evolved processes. John A Wheeler, physicist ,will have told you that as well as A. N. Whitehead, philosopher. Several others could be mentioned as well, but since you get your scholarly data from Wikipedia, there'd be no point. Take a look at this study by the way where we see some evidence that microbes are intelligent creatures - another thing that I recall you doubted: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130118172335.htm In short, I would argue that the reacting processes of the so-called non loving substances are nevertheless intelligently reactive and that those of the clearly living entities are intelligently proactive. But then of course at the level of your logic, you wouldn't. So Frank, you look in Wikipedia to understand adaptive mutation? How logically skilled is that? And in your so-called understanding of your own analogy, your logic tells you that interaction does not involve reaction?
All reactions in nature are governed by its intelligently evolved processes. John A Wheeler, physicist ,will have told you that as well as A. N. Whitehead, philosopher. Several others could be mentioned as well, but since you get your scholarly data from Wikipedia, there’d be no point.
Take a look at this study by the way where we see some evidence that microbes are intelligent creatures – another thing that I recall you doubted: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130118172335.htm
In short, I would argue that the reacting processes of the so-called non loving substances are nevertheless intelligently reactive and that those of the clearly living entities are intelligently proactive.
But then of course at the level of your logic, you wouldn’t.

]]> By: Frank http://www.futurity.org/science-technology/new-genomes-hint-at-evolution%e2%80%99s-slimy-past/comment-page-1/#comment-558492 Frank Sun, 20 Jan 2013 01:14:09 +0000 http://www.futurity.org/?p=246082#comment-558492 "I presume you’re capable of doing your own (and actual) research into adaptive mutation. I’d also advise you to read my book except that if you wanted to you already would have." Both true, yet neither provide evidence for your points nor discredit mine. My understanding of adaptive mutation comes from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_mutation), where discussion of increased mutation rates across the board take up a majority of the article. The "intelligent" polymer that you linked is simply performing a little thermodynamic process called osmosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmosis). By using oil and water I was asking whether their separation, another process driven by entropy (a base tenant for thermodynamics), would also qualify as being "intelligent." The fact you can't comprehend the analogy leads me to question your logic skills. Additionally the two liquids do not react, a process implying that at least one of the compounds transforms into another. They are simply interacting with their surroundings and changing their shape into a conformation that is more favorable. If you are going to go around positing new/different theories that are at odds with the currently accepted and scientifically vetted theory then you ought to be able to back your theory up, plain and simple. “I presume you’re capable of doing your own (and actual) research into adaptive mutation. I’d also advise you to read my book except that if you wanted to you already would have.”

Both true, yet neither provide evidence for your points nor discredit mine.

My understanding of adaptive mutation comes from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_mutation), where discussion of increased mutation rates across the board take up a majority of the article.

The “intelligent” polymer that you linked is simply performing a little thermodynamic process called osmosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmosis). By using oil and water I was asking whether their separation, another process driven by entropy (a base tenant for thermodynamics), would also qualify as being “intelligent.” The fact you can’t comprehend the analogy leads me to question your logic skills. Additionally the two liquids do not react, a process implying that at least one of the compounds transforms into another. They are simply interacting with their surroundings and changing their shape into a conformation that is more favorable.

If you are going to go around positing new/different theories that are at odds with the currently accepted and scientifically vetted theory then you ought to be able to back your theory up, plain and simple.

]]> By: rac http://www.futurity.org/science-technology/new-genomes-hint-at-evolution%e2%80%99s-slimy-past/comment-page-1/#comment-556482 rac Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:09:04 +0000 http://www.futurity.org/?p=246082#comment-556482 We know that what we call intelligence exists in the higher orders of organisms. What is to say that it is not also present in lmore elementary ones? In any event, a question basic to the discussion is that of where / how intelligence was first acquired by the first "intelligent" organism? What we call intelligence, even at its most elementary level, is dependent upon the ability to acquire and process complex information. That this ability arose spontaneously by pure random chance either out of the primordial ooze or in the course of evolution is a flight of highly fanciful conjecture without substance. We know that what we call intelligence exists in the higher orders of organisms. What is to say that it is not also present in lmore elementary ones? In any event, a question basic to the discussion is that of where / how intelligence was first acquired by the first “intelligent” organism? What we call intelligence, even at its most elementary level, is dependent upon the ability to acquire and process complex information. That this ability arose spontaneously by pure random chance either out of the primordial ooze or in the course of evolution is a flight of highly fanciful conjecture without substance.

]]> By: Roy Niles http://www.futurity.org/science-technology/new-genomes-hint-at-evolution%e2%80%99s-slimy-past/comment-page-1/#comment-555842 Roy Niles Thu, 17 Jan 2013 01:12:59 +0000 http://www.futurity.org/?p=246082#comment-555842 Frank, I presume you're capable of doing your own (and actual) research into adaptive mutation. I'd also advise you to read my book except that if you wanted to you already would have. In any case there are a number of papers that speculate as to how the information in the DNA and RNA structures can be altered when experience is interpreted strategically and "advises" the systems to react with some retuning. And further papers examine the methods that the new strategic information can be transferred via sperm, etc. (Strategies that really can't be accidentally mutated of course.) You state that "The only thing mentioned by adaptive mutation theorists that might help your case is that certain environmental pressures will increase the mutation rate, which will create more adaptions" That statement is clearly false, and you either haven't read that anywhere in the works of any of those actual theorists or didn't understand at all what you were reading.. So I suspect you just want to successfully argue, no matter if it's a truthful argument or not. And why did I mention creationists? Because if you actually read any of their stuff, you'd see that they've done the math at least that tends to blow your statistic projections out of the water. Other than that they seem to making up as much stuff as you are now attempting to do. And then you come up with the silly oil and water analogy, which obviously has nothing to do with intelligent choice making creatures. These liquids are reacting rather than responding and bear no analogical relation to the molecular substances' strategies in the cited article. Although if they did, you'd be even more wrong about the prevalence of intelligence in nature than you already are. Frank, I presume you’re capable of doing your own (and actual) research into adaptive mutation. I’d also advise you to read my book except that if you wanted to you already would have. In any case there are a number of papers that speculate as to how the information in the DNA and RNA structures can be altered when experience is interpreted strategically and “advises” the systems to react with some retuning. And further papers examine the methods that the new strategic information can be transferred via sperm, etc.
(Strategies that really can’t be accidentally mutated of course.)
You state that “The only thing mentioned by adaptive mutation theorists that might help your case is that certain environmental pressures will increase the mutation rate, which will create more adaptions”
That statement is clearly false, and you either haven’t read that anywhere in the works of any of those actual theorists or didn’t understand at all what you were reading.. So I suspect you just want to successfully argue, no matter if it’s a truthful argument or not.
And why did I mention creationists? Because if you actually read any of their stuff, you’d see that they’ve done the math at least that tends to blow your statistic projections out of the water. Other than that they seem to making up as much stuff as you are now attempting to do.
And then you come up with the silly oil and water analogy, which obviously has nothing to do with intelligent choice making creatures. These liquids are reacting rather than responding and bear no analogical relation to the molecular substances’ strategies in the cited article. Although if they did, you’d be even more wrong about the prevalence of intelligence in nature than you already are.

]]> By: Frank http://www.futurity.org/science-technology/new-genomes-hint-at-evolution%e2%80%99s-slimy-past/comment-page-1/#comment-555802 Frank Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:41:25 +0000 http://www.futurity.org/?p=246082#comment-555802 @Roy I'm having some trouble trying to grasp what exactly you mean by "intelligent processes that operate in every biological cell of every system" or by the "test" that NeoDarwinism theories can't pass I am interested in the research showing that my understanding of epigenetics is flawed, despite that fact that post-translation modifications can have an effect on protein expression, the underlying DNA, which by the way would code for the very proteins that would perform the modifications, stays the same and is unaltered. So even if external factors cause modifications, the modifications would need to include changing DNA otherwise the offspring will have the exam same DNA and in the same environment respond in the same manner. If you think that enough code is built into DNA for a species to be able to adapt solely by post-translational modification to any environment, I would just point to any mass extinction where a majority of life was unable to cope with the quick change in environment. But with proof I would be inclined to believe you so just let me know where the proof is. If a given process happens an uncountable number of times (cell division for example), even with a mutation rate of 0.0001% statistically there will still be lots of mutations. Some will not have any effect (as many codons code for the same amino acid), some will have detrimental effects (most likely leading to death of the cell), and some will have beneficial effects (which would help the survival of the organism and increase the chance it reproduces). The fact is that random mutations would create a spectrum of variants for any specific thing you look at, and that environmental pressure will then select those variants that are favorable and select against those that are disfavorable. Considering how prevalent the Darwinian theory of evolution is and how widely accepted as the main theory of evolution due to a multitude of scientific vetting, I would actually say that in order to prove your alternate theory you would have to disprove other contradictory theories. I fail to see how Creationists are relevant to the conversation nor how they have disproved scientific literature, but as before solid proof is welcomed. The reason scientific theories are called theories is that there is evidence to support said theory. We might not be able to completely explain what a graviton is at this point in time, but the theory of gravity and attraction of two objects has been proven time and again. Check your links, I don't see how either of those are relevant to this discussion. To me they both seem like using intentional design of a framework to achieve a specific goal. The only thing mentioned by adaptive mutation theorists that might help your case is that certain environmental pressures will increase the mutation rate, which will create more adaptions. I fail to see how such mutations would be locally limited to a specific region, but would swallow my words with sufficient proof. A phrase I am fond of is "Extraordinary theory, extraordinary proof" and so I await your extraordinary proof. Lastly, I just want to ask if I mixed a glass of water and a glass of oil together, watched as they exerted a force on the other (something I would deem external) and separated into two layers, would they be considered intelligent because the two liquids responded to outside stimuli? @Roy I’m having some trouble trying to grasp what exactly you mean by “intelligent processes that operate in every biological cell of every system” or by the “test” that NeoDarwinism theories can’t pass

I am interested in the research showing that my understanding of epigenetics is flawed, despite that fact that post-translation modifications can have an effect on protein expression, the underlying DNA, which by the way would code for the very proteins that would perform the modifications, stays the same and is unaltered. So even if external factors cause modifications, the modifications would need to include changing DNA otherwise the offspring will have the exam same DNA and in the same environment respond in the same manner. If you think that enough code is built into DNA for a species to be able to adapt solely by post-translational modification to any environment, I would just point to any mass extinction where a majority of life was unable to cope with the quick change in environment. But with proof I would be inclined to believe you so just let me know where the proof is.

If a given process happens an uncountable number of times (cell division for example), even with a mutation rate of 0.0001% statistically there will still be lots of mutations. Some will not have any effect (as many codons code for the same amino acid), some will have detrimental effects (most likely leading to death of the cell), and some will have beneficial effects (which would help the survival of the organism and increase the chance it reproduces). The fact is that random mutations would create a spectrum of variants for any specific thing you look at, and that environmental pressure will then select those variants that are favorable and select against those that are disfavorable. Considering how prevalent the Darwinian theory of evolution is and how widely accepted as the main theory of evolution due to a multitude of scientific vetting, I would actually say that in order to prove your alternate theory you would have to disprove other contradictory theories.

I fail to see how Creationists are relevant to the conversation nor how they have disproved scientific literature, but as before solid proof is welcomed. The reason scientific theories are called theories is that there is evidence to support said theory. We might not be able to completely explain what a graviton is at this point in time, but the theory of gravity and attraction of two objects has been proven time and again.

Check your links, I don’t see how either of those are relevant to this discussion. To me they both seem like using intentional design of a framework to achieve a specific goal.

The only thing mentioned by adaptive mutation theorists that might help your case is that certain environmental pressures will increase the mutation rate, which will create more adaptions. I fail to see how such mutations would be locally limited to a specific region, but would swallow my words with sufficient proof. A phrase I am fond of is “Extraordinary theory, extraordinary proof” and so I await your extraordinary proof.

Lastly, I just want to ask if I mixed a glass of water and a glass of oil together, watched as they exerted a force on the other (something I would deem external) and separated into two layers, would they be considered intelligent because the two liquids responded to outside stimuli?

]]> By: Roy Niles http://www.futurity.org/science-technology/new-genomes-hint-at-evolution%e2%80%99s-slimy-past/comment-page-1/#comment-555532 Roy Niles Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:21:15 +0000 http://www.futurity.org/?p=246082#comment-555532 And check this out for the use of "intelligence" with reference to molecules: http://www.nano-initiative-munich.de/news/news/article/1/a-single-molecule-in-sight/ And check this out for the use of “intelligence” with reference to molecules:

http://www.nano-initiative-munich.de/news/news/article/1/a-single-molecule-in-sight/

]]> By: Roy Niles http://www.futurity.org/science-technology/new-genomes-hint-at-evolution%e2%80%99s-slimy-past/comment-page-1/#comment-555282 Roy Niles Wed, 16 Jan 2013 20:16:11 +0000 http://www.futurity.org/?p=246082#comment-555282 Also, Frank, everything that uses a minimum of intelligence to do something is conscious on that level of what it has to feel to do it. That's not in the book but it should have been. Also, Frank, everything that uses a minimum of intelligence to do something is conscious on that level of what it has to feel to do it.
That’s not in the book but it should have been.

]]> By: Roy Niles http://www.futurity.org/science-technology/new-genomes-hint-at-evolution%e2%80%99s-slimy-past/comment-page-1/#comment-555182 Roy Niles Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:57:18 +0000 http://www.futurity.org/?p=246082#comment-555182 Frank, Read this piece and tell me how accidents created this arrangement: http://money.cnn.com/gallery/technology/2013/01/15/hardest-computing-problems.fortune/3.html Frank, Read this piece and tell me how accidents created this arrangement:
http://money.cnn.com/gallery/technology/2013/01/15/hardest-computing-problems.fortune/3.html

]]> By: Roy Niles http://www.futurity.org/science-technology/new-genomes-hint-at-evolution%e2%80%99s-slimy-past/comment-page-1/#comment-555132 Roy Niles Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:42:39 +0000 http://www.futurity.org/?p=246082#comment-555132 Frank, my arguments are supported by a number of prominent scientists who are often referred to as adaptive mutation theorists, and so I didn't come up with these ideas on m own, I do quote these people in my book, but the book is mainly about my own ideas concerning the functional aspects of trust and its counter function of deception. And when all of these scientists speak of intelligent aspects of mutation, we don't mean conscious acts of our more rational brains but the unconscious machinations of the intelligent processes that operate in every biological cell of every system. I repeat that mutations by pure accident don’t confer intelligent changes that would otherwise need a miracle to intelligently fit new environmental circumstances. NeoDarwinist theories such as yours recited here just can't pass that simple test. Your little lecture about how sperm cells work and can't be changed, etc., is simply wrong, and the newer study of epigenetic systems, for example, should have shown you that already. But I don't intend to argue further about why your theories, no matter how cleverly designed over the years by scientists, simply cannot work. Oddly enough, the silly Creationists have pointed out a lot of your errors for many years, but they failed to come up with any better answers as well, giving credit for intelligence to gods instead of life. But life has been intelligent from the start, and no gods were needed. Where did we get that initial intelligence? That's also a subject in the book. Frank, my arguments are supported by a number of prominent scientists who are often referred to as adaptive mutation theorists, and so I didn’t come up with these ideas on m own, I do quote these people in my book, but the book is mainly about my own ideas concerning the functional aspects of trust and its counter function of deception. And when all of these scientists speak of intelligent aspects of mutation, we don’t mean conscious acts of our more rational brains but the unconscious machinations of the intelligent processes that operate in every biological cell of every system.
I repeat that mutations by pure accident don’t confer intelligent changes that would otherwise need a miracle to intelligently fit new environmental circumstances. NeoDarwinist theories such as yours recited here just can’t pass that simple test.
Your little lecture about how sperm cells work and can’t be changed, etc., is simply wrong, and the newer study of epigenetic systems, for example, should have shown you that already. But I don’t intend to argue further about why your theories, no matter how cleverly designed over the years by scientists, simply cannot work. Oddly enough, the silly Creationists have pointed out a lot of your errors for many years, but they failed to come up with any better answers as well, giving credit for intelligence to gods instead of life. But life has been intelligent from the start, and no gods were needed. Where did we get that initial intelligence? That’s also a subject in the book.

]]>